mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Huge applause for the Supreme Court Options
RedStar
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:45:32 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
The people of the United States can celebrate a great victory after the Supreme Court decision on Health Care. Now the government can move forward, looking out for the best interests of ALL people rather than those who keep screaming about ‘individual rights’. In reality there is no individual. Just like other species, we live, work, and die for the whole. The individual’s rights begin and end with government control.

The next step: Reelect our president. It’s time for the people to completely take back the country.
maillady
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:45:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2012
Posts: 258
Neurons: 3,375
You have GOT to be kidding me.
RedStar
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 4:34:43 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
maillady wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding me.


Though you may try to hide your agreement because I'm so open with my political position, your previous posts have agreed with mine in almost every case. But you don't want to come out and 'say it'. You're uncomfortable with the word that describes you deep down. That's ok. I know if you were a citizen of the U.S. I could count on your vote for our president. And I also know that many others here feel the same way, but they are't comfortable stating their views completely.

We shall overcome.
boneyfriend
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 6:43:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2009
Posts: 2,625
Neurons: 10,546
Location: Columbia, South Carolina, United States
I agree with you RedStar. I am so thankful and appreciative for our President. My adult son lost his job and his health insurance. He is somewhat disabled but not on disability. In this state, he is not eliible for Medicaid. We tried. I support him financially. If I were able to pay for Cobra I would have. With this bill, he will get Medicaid in 2014 as I understand it. Oh Happy Day. If something serious happened to him right now, I wouldn't be able to pay for it.
Yakcal
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 6:53:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/1/2011
Posts: 583
Neurons: 30,845
Location: Trinidad, California, United States

Present, but abstaining on the current vote.

Sound familiar to anyone?

excaelis
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 7:48:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Welcome to Can o' Worms Day at TFD.
martyg
Posted: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:59:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 327
Neurons: 2,386
i'm clapping with one hand.

RedStar
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:24:49 AM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
boneyfriend wrote:
I agree with you RedStar. I am so thankful and appreciative for our President. My adult son lost his job and his health insurance. He is somewhat disabled but not on disability. In this state, he is not eliible for Medicaid. We tried. I support him financially. If I were able to pay for Cobra I would have. With this bill, he will get Medicaid in 2014 as I understand it. Oh Happy Day. If something serious happened to him right now, I wouldn't be able to pay for it.



Thank you Boneyfriend. You are able to state up front exactly how you feel. So many feel like we do but are reluctant to say so because they do not want to be labeled. The words Socialist, Marxist, Communist, etc. are considered negative in this country (though that is changing) and few want to wear those names with pride. But we do want what those terms offer us - the security that guarantees true equality.

I am also proud of our President, but even he is not yet willing to accept any of those ‘terms’ as welcome descriptors. In his case, it is a wise decision because it is a must that he be reelected in order to continue the work. And that is the most important thing right now.

Thank you again for your open support.
boneyfriend
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:07:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2009
Posts: 2,625
Neurons: 10,546
Location: Columbia, South Carolina, United States
You are so welcome RedStar. I am so surprised at the response to this post. I would think it would be a popular post site and I don't see much activity. My friends and I are emailing and calling each other to discuss the law ad infinitum. What is going on here with the paucity of responses?
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:25:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 13,239
Neurons: 625,347
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
[quote=boneyfriend]You are so welcome RedStar. I am so surprised at the response to this post. I would think it would be a popular post site and I don't see much activity. My friends and I are emailing and calling each other to discuss the law ad infinitum. What is going on here with the paucity of responses?[/
quote]

They are watching the Tennis!
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 5:46:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 201
Neurons: 780
boneyfriend wrote:
I agree with you RedStar. I am so thankful and appreciative for our President. My adult son lost his job and his health insurance. He is somewhat disabled but not on disability. In this state, he is not eliible for Medicaid. We tried. I support him financially. If I were able to pay for Cobra I would have. With this bill, he will get Medicaid in 2014 as I understand it. Oh Happy Day. If something serious happened to him right now, I wouldn't be able to pay for it.


@boneyfriend.

Bony. First this won't kick in until 2014. Then there are a lot unanswered questions. How much people got to pay and what kind of coverage they'll get? How about folks that are in welfare? 47 milion!!!! How can you force someone to pay money they don't have? Is the govmt going to subsidize part of the cost of the hospitals and Rxs? There are and going to be raised so many questions down the road.

May be I am wrong but the way I see it the decision was rather political one. Lets wait and see with fingers crossed.

My optimism is a little bit restrained.
Romany
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:08:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,685
Neurons: 57,280
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Something struck me in Margaret's post above.

She posted "How about folks that are in welfare? 47 million."

Forgive my density, but that sounds as though, until 2014, people on Welfare don't have any illness benefits. Surely I'm misinterpreting? That would mean that 47million people were currently being abandoned by their country/society. Surely I'm missing something here?
Tovarish
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:18:13 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Boney did say 2014.

I dont see what the big fuss is over, we have had Medicare for say 25 years.

A % of all wages are taxed for the basic contribution, and if you want a Private Room, Private Hospital and your choise of Doctor,

then you pay for Private Health care, it is not compulsory
rancher5
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:24:52 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/30/2012
Posts: 4
Neurons: 12
Location: United States, Co
Shame on you Your crazy, though the youth of today will or have grown with Government oversight, this verdict of the courts gives tremendous power to the Gov, Just like Mayor Bloomberg banning >16 oz drinks in New York, We know not where it will end, Not to forget this will never be budgeted, it could banckrupt the United States, Who among the Youth really need HC, as a man who grew up and like all of my pears where away from home by the age of 18-21 maxs, never even considered HC, if we thought we where to sick we would pay 45 bucks and see a doctor. Mandated enrollement or taxs, Crazy glad the youth will have to suck it up, but I suppose since they have their smart phone or computer thats as far as their world will go.Sorry if this generalization, goes against your reality, there are exceptions.Oh by the way thanks for paying for my HC , being an old dude.
rancher5
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:30:04 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/30/2012
Posts: 4
Neurons: 12
Location: United States, Co
Post that was reffering to Medicare should of stated Medicaid which is 100's of billions in the hole another one of those Gov programs that was not to be a tax burden, its completely bankrupt, got to really do your home work.
almostfreebird
Posted: Saturday, June 30, 2012 11:43:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 2,812
Neurons: 7,024
Location: Japan



Why Communism might be annoying

Although in principle it is great, it is not at all realistic.
They want you to share your stuff with others.
Massive deaths as a result of party policy are regarded by their leaders as statistics.
They ignore human greed and abusive leadership.
Combined loss of life from the first 'Five Year Plan' (Soviet Union) and 'Great Leap Forward' (People's Republic of China): is estimated 36 million.
Their name for the working class ('proletariat') sounds like a racehorse.
They are quick to use fruity terms like 'bourgeois' to describe those who own things.
Its benefactors are issued their own 'ism' (Stalinism, Maoism, Leninism, Trotskyism ...).
Since Marx and Engels were Jews, it opened up another avenue to be anti-semitic.
They undermined the United States government before, during and after World War II.
They terrified mainstream America in the 1950s.
Che Guevara, one of their icons, became a fashion statement.
They made a star out of Senator Joe McCarthy who hunted them.
Two words - Tiananmen Square.
They are always ruled by an absolute and usually ruthless dictator.

Why Communism might not be annoying

The traditional family, hippie communes, kibutzim/agricultural collectives, sports salary caps and social security are forms of socialism.
According to their ideals, a country should be run by a pure democracy of the masses.
They believe mankind can be perfected and live in an altruistic utopia.
They claim religion is the 'opiate of the masses.'
They felt those who worked the hardest deserved to control the means of production.
When they really louse things up, they eventually try to admit they were wrong. Khrushchev's 'Secret Speech' denounced Joseph Stalin as a criminal and Deng Xiaoping's 'Beijing Spring' helped apologize for the 'Cultural Revolution' by Mao Tse-tung.
More soldiers died defending it in World War II than any other cause (approximately 8,000,000).
At the peak of its popularity over 1/3 of the world followed it.
Like Santa Claus, many of them have beards and advocate the distribution of wealth (or 'presents') to the proletariat.


http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(pypiok55i5d5wujodj4vk0zu))/view.aspx?ID=16203



Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:34:03 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Whow, rancher5, keep your shirt on!

We do have Medicare in Australia, you may wish to research it and see how other countries cope with their populations health,

you may even learn something.
twinsonic
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:53:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/18/2009
Posts: 356
Neurons: 1,322
rancher5 wrote:
Who among the Youth really need HC...


Surely you are being sarcastic. My 19 year old daughter "really" needs HC. Really, really needs it. We are fortunate to live in a state where when she turned 19 she was automatically enrolled in the state adult health care program. There is no way she could afford health care with a pre-existing condition that requires several daily medications. I have no health care myself, and it worries me. Too poor to afford it (500-700 a month), too much money to get it free, no job that provides it. Maybe something will come along that will help me.

I would love to be able to pay my own way, but the reality of life is, I can't. Not right now.
When you (and I) were young we were fortunate not to need surgery, be involved in an accident, or have a chronic condition.
ellana
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 4:11:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/19/2010
Posts: 673
Neurons: 127,363
Location: Roquefort, Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, France
I have lived and worked in several countries that have a national health programme and was always happy to have payroll deductions to support the system. It's a fair way for everyone to have access to care when needed. And one does not end up in bankruptcy in the unfortunate event of a serious injury or illness.

I have also lived and worked in the US (in healthcare no less) and was insured through my employer with payroll deductions. The quality of healthcare in the US goes from one end of the spectrum to the other and the cost is astronomical in most instances. Compare the cost of an MRI in the US vs. Canada or
France. Now there's a shocking truth... and a reminder that all is definitely not well in US healthcare. Not to mention litigation with indiscriminate and greedy attorneys appropriately called 'ambulance chasers' grabbing ill informed 'victims', frequently guiding them to inappropriate medical providers who in turn spin the treatment wheel feeding the courts with costly procedures... I could go on 'ad nauseam'.

I agree with Tovarish... the US has a lot to learn in the provision of healthcare and there are many examples out there on how it is done equitably. No system is perfect but there are ways for the US to get out of its shameful healthcare situation. Perhaps the door of change has been opened by the Supreme Court.
HWNN1961
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 5:11:40 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/13/2010
Posts: 3,494
Neurons: 9,763
maillady wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding me.




Are you people really this stupid?
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:45:03 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Australia's Medicare System has worked well under both Labor & Liberal,National (conservative) Parties.

Free medical and Public Hospital is available to the most needy in our society, War Widows, eligible War Veterans and the financially vulnerable.

The most seriously ill will never be denied full Medicare coverage.

We are not a Third World country, so it is expected that we care for the most needy.
Romany
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:49:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,685
Neurons: 57,280
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
You know Tov, I've lived more in 3rd World countries than in 1st world ones but I've always considered that to be one of the big divisions between the two. First world countries can afford to look after their most needy.

That's why we don't have slums like those in some other countries, nor the swarms of beggars, nor sanitation and public health issues that 3rd world countries battle with?

In a class discussion about why there were no volunteer organisations for public welfare in China, I had asked why everyone always thinks it's the Government's job to provide all the answers/funds. And what if the Government just doesn't have (or won't release) the funding?

This led to a discussion on organisations like Australia's Life-savers, Emergency Services, Firefighters etc.

But my students weren't terribly impressed and said: "Yeah. Because you First World. You can afford it."

Most people in 3rd World countries don't have the time or the resources to do anything but try to scrape a living. They ARE the needy.
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:02:38 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
So good to hear from you Romany, I dont want to "blow my own (Australias) trumpet", however we are 2nd, behind Switzerland,

with the containment of AIDS.

This is due to free needles and Methadone Clinics.

Some times you just have to put your money where your mouth is.
Margarit Bamllari
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:07:54 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2009
Posts: 201
Neurons: 780
Romany wrote:
Something struck me in Margaret's post above.

She posted "How about folks that are in welfare? 47 million."

Forgive my density, but that sounds as though, until 2014, people on Welfare don't have any illness benefits. Surely I'm misinterpreting? That would mean that 47million people were currently being abandoned by their country/society. Surely I'm missing something here?


Oh no no Romany. People in welfare right now get some very basic/limited health care called Medicare but when the new program kicks in, in 2014 (I would doubt) they will either be forced to PAY out of their pocket or stay at the same Medicare they are having now. And bare in mind they make up some 13% of the total population.

US forum members feed back would shed some more light in the subject.
almostfreebird
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:38:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 2,812
Neurons: 7,024
Location: Japan
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/326/index.html

There's an early scene in Michael Moore's new film "Sicko" where a guy sits in his living room with a needle and thread not doing embroidery but sewing up a nasty gash in his knee. The guy's one of the tens of millions of Americans with no health care coverage. But Moore's film isn't really about the uninsured...it's about the terrifying things that can happen to people with coverage in a healthcare system that can leave people bankrupt, sicker, or in some cases dead.



BRANCACCIO: Well, look what happened to this woman.

MOORE V.O.: Laura Bernam was in a 45 mile-an-hour head-on collision that knocked her out cold. Paramedics got her out of the car and into an ambulance for a trip to the hospital.

BERNAM: I get a bill from my insurance company telling me that the ambulance ride was not gonna be paid for because it wasn't pre-approved.

I don't know exactly when I was supposed to pre-approve it. You know, like after I gained consciousness in the car, before I got in the ambulance, or I should have grabbed my cell phone off of the street and called while I was in the ambulance, or, I mean, this is just crazy.

BRANCACCIO: Was that representative of the kinda things that you got in?

MOORE: Yes. And that's a minor. That's a minor one. Fairly small medical bill. And actually, you know, the—the insurance companies, they've done their own statistical—research.

And they know that if they just send zero, like denied, won't pay any of it, to a certain number of people—a certain percentage of those won't complain, won't contest it, and then will just go ahead and pay it themselves.

And you've been around Europeans. They smoke a lot more than we do. I think they drink a lot more than we do. And yet they live longer. Now, how—why is that? It's because if you don't have to worry about paying to see a doctor, the first sign of illness, or a lump or something, you're going right there. You go right there to the doctor. And that's why they're able to catch a lot of things earlier than we do.

Because we have 47 million that don't have insurance, so they put off going to the doctor for as long as possible, sometimes then exacerbating the illness or the disease to the point where then it's too late to—to save them or cure them. And that brings our life expectancy rate down.




RedStar
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 2:56:10 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
I'm very pleased that others are now willing to 'step up to the plate' and be proud of the direction our country is going. Health Care is something that the Government MUST have control over. It's the first step in garnering equality for all, and in providing a better quality of life for everyone. There are many things that people do in the name of 'individual freedom' that's very bad for their health and the health of others. Now that the government will control health care, it is in a position to take action against those things that will adversely affect our people's health. If research shows that somehthing is bad, the government has now been given the power to immediately deal with it - through heavy taxation which will restrict the practice - or outright banning.

We simply must do what is best for the whole. Step by step, we shall make our journey.
niblick
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:48:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 190
Neurons: 562
Location: United States
[quote=Romany]Something struck me in Margaret's post above.

She posted "How about folks that are in welfare? 47 million."

Forgive my density, but that sounds as though, until 2014, people on Welfare don't have any illness benefits. Surely I'm misinterpreting? That would mean that 47million people were currently being abandoned by their country/society. Surely I'm missing something here?[/quote

By a 7 to 2 margin, the SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not force the individual states to expand
Medicaid benefits or lose federal funding. Not just in 2014 but going forward, poor people will have less in the way of benefits rather than more. While there are other conservative takeaways from the 6/28 decision, the final destiny
of the ACA will not be known until the November election and will not be fully known even then.

This is a complicated subject which should be studied and analyzed; it does not lend itself to the self-important,
self-referential comments one sometimes encounters in these fora.
maillady
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 8:45:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2012
Posts: 258
Neurons: 3,375
Well,why the heck am I working my butt off every day?!? I should just quit and let the government take care of me. Ahhh,but who will pay for everything then?
niblick
Posted: Sunday, July 1, 2012 9:12:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/30/2010
Posts: 190
Neurons: 562
Location: United States
maillady wrote:
Well,why the heck am I working my butt off every day?!? I should just quit and let the government take care of me. Ahhh,but who will pay for everything then?


This seems a reasonable question, Maillady. While I do not have the answer to it, I think that when
the successful are penalized for their success and the failures rewarded for their failure we are well
on the way to decadence. Then too, one must consider the sustainability of crushing debt for what has
already been consumed. If we continue to borrow over a third of what we spend, it will in short order
be academic what point of view is correct since we will perish as a society.

Alex de Toqueville: a democracy will only last until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves
benefits.
MTC
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 2:33:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/18/2011
Posts: 2,780
Neurons: 8,606
While Liberal revelers celebrate the Supreme Court's approval of the Health Care law they may not have noticed the camel poking its nose into the tent. Much social legislation in the U.S. including the Social Security Act and the Civil Rights Act was enacted by Congress exercising its power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative, joined the other four conservative justices in rejecting the Administration's argument that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to enact the Health Care law. Instead Roberts opined Congress derived its authority to enact the Health Care law from its constitutional power to Tax. Liberals on the Court (4 of the 9) disagreed with Roberts and with the four conservative Justices, finding the Commerce Clause empowered Congress to act. So one conservative Justice and four liberal Justices found Congress had the power to enact the law, but for different reasons. This difference is significant because in future challenges to Congressional authority to enact social legislation, Roberts may well join the other four conservative Justices in finding no authority exists. If the court follows this line of reasoning, the entire framework ("tent") of liberal social legislation may be undermined. That is the camel whose nose has inserted itself into the legislative tent, threatening its collapse. (For the record, I agree with the Liberals on the Court.) There is cause for celebration, but keep an eye on the "camel"
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 9:29:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
MTC wrote:
There is cause for celebration, but keep an eye on the "camel"


That is a good point to keep in mind for anyone wishing to make political or polemic capital from this decision.

What I find remarkable about the holding — indeed the various opinions as well — is the overall legal soundness of it and good faith attempt to both acknowledge personal biases and the willingness to set them aside in order to arrive at a legal consensus. Throughout the majority opinion the general idea is cited to assume that Congress "means what it says" and to interpret any possible ambiguity in the most supportive sense rather than to immediately find fault and nullify an Act of Congress in its entirety when isolated portions of it exceed constitutionally enumerated powers.

Justice may be blind, but individual justices certainly are not. The closing words of the majority opinion make this clear.

Quote:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and
unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot
be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to
engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those
who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go
without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening
existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to
order the States to regulate according to its instructions.
Congress may offer the States grants and require the
States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the
States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the
offer. The States are given no such choice in this case:
They must either accept a basic change in the nature of
Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy
for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal
Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy
does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.

The Framers created a Federal Government of limited
powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing
those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does
not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable
Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

It is so ordered.


Keep an eye on the "camel," indeed…
abcxyz
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 9:37:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 1,056
Neurons: 3,200
Location: India
maillady wrote:
Well,why the heck am I working my butt off every day?!? I should just quit and let the government take care of me. Ahhh,but who will pay for everything then?


You mean the poor aren't working their butts off?
leonAzul
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 10:55:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Romany wrote:
Something struck me in Margaret's post above.

She posted "How about folks that are in welfare? 47 million."

Forgive my density, but that sounds as though, until 2014, people on Welfare don't have any illness benefits. Surely I'm misinterpreting? That would mean that 47million people were currently being abandoned by their country/society. Surely I'm missing something here?


You have not missed anything. This speaks to an on-going discourse among the American people over the extent to which the Federal government ought to be responsible for societal welfare and stability.

For the most part, European institutions have adopted a broader interpretation for the role of government in social services, as much as a matter of Realpolitik as any sense of compassion. To oversimplify somewhat, the various states in Europe have a history of more gradual transition from proprietary monarchies wherein the king claims personal ownership of anything not part of the commons, to the current mix of constitutional monarchies, republics, and democracies that exist today. Even Canada has taken its time to assert its independence and only in 1982 was formally recognized as such. In short, there is a lot of historical precedent for greater comfort with the idea of central governments playing an active role in social services.

In sharp contrast, the USA set off on a path to limit its governance to only those powers to which the citizens explicitly consent. There is a certain anarchistic strain in American thinking that local interests will naturally sort themselves out better in collaboration with each other to form a consensus according to actual facts than any code or edict issued from an un-informed central agency.

excaelis
Posted: Monday, July 2, 2012 11:54:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Many want Governments to adopt a more business-based idea of how to run society. Of course when you're running a business and an employee isn't working out you fire him or her. Unfortunately, you can't really do that in a society so you have to figure out ways to cope with those who, for whatever reason, can't ( or sometimes won't ) support themselves. An intractable issue.
RedStar
Posted: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:57:49 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
excaelis wrote:
Many want Governments to adopt a more business-based idea of how to run society. Of course when you're running a business and an employee isn't working out you fire him or her. Unfortunately, you can't really do that in a society so you have to figure out ways to cope with those who, for whatever reason, can't ( or sometimes won't ) support themselves. An intractable issue.


That's the beauty of our next incarnation as a government. No one will expect it to be run like a business, which would be far too much capitalism. Instead, the government will control those things which have the most impact on its people. The health care law was a TREMENDOUS victory in moving us along in that direction. There are many things we do as individuals which are clearly bad for our health. If the government is now responsible for picking up the tab for ridiculous mistakes that cause more health concerns, it can now reduce those activities through heavy taxation OR ban them outrignt as a major health concern. As I have said previously, individual rights and freedoms should be secondary to the state's rights to control poor behaviors/activities which are costly to the whole.

Here we go. Let's enjoy the ride.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.